The Theory of evolution is still not fully proved as it resolves around ideas and not hard facts. If it can be proven then why do scientists still call it a theory? unless there is clear undeniable evidence that a change of species has existed in todays' times then science shouldn't follow this theory and neither should students.

I would like to thank my opponent for instigating this topic. My opponent is a well-educated individual from Saudi Arabia, and I respect his opinion. However, it is incorrect and I aim to enlighten him and others who share creationist beliefs.

==Rebuttals==

a) It is ‘just’ a theory

This is a common argument used by creationists who do not understand what a theory is. In fact, according to Creation Ministries International—the leading creationist think tank—says that wording is incorrect. You should instead say you disbelieve the evidence, or something along those lines. However, in science, a theory is a “well-substantiated explanation of data” [1].

Therefore, to say it is ‘just’ a theory is like admitting evolution is a well-substantiated position within the scientific sphere. My opponent, therefore, must not say that it is ‘just’ a theory, and should rather explain why evolution is incorrect.

b) Based on ideas

This is, in part, correct. Evolution is based on ideas. However, isn’t religion also based on ideas? Therefore, merely because something contains ideas behind it does not mean it is incorrect. To say that evolution is not based on facts is totally incorrect. In fact, it is one of the most supported theories in scientific istory. Hopefully I will enlighten my opponent as to the vast array of evidence for the theory of evolution—and I am using the word ‘theory’ as it is used in science, not in popular culture.

==Case==

a) Anatomical vestiges

First, what is a vestige? A vestige is a structure which has lost all or most of its function in a given species. As the argument goes, they only are retained because of evolution.

A very well-known example would be ostrich wings. Wings evolved in order to provide flight, however the ostrich cannot fly, still has them. If evolution didn’t exist, and it came about from a designer, he must have not been very intelligent (reminds me of Tyson’s “Stupid Design” talk). Therefore, the only reasonable explanation is that the ostrich evolved from something which could fly, and they have simply been retained and have not yet gone away. However, they are not vestigial because they are useless—they help the bird balance whilst running, for example. They are vestigial because they are useless as wings [2].

How does this prove evolution? They are remnants of change. If a God made these animals, they would not have useless parts. This can easily be explained by evolution, as these parts had a function in the past and do not have one now. Alexander Werth, Biologist, has noted that vestige are “artifacts of the progressive change that occurred over generations via natural selection” [3]. Just like clues at a crime scene. Although the knife is no longer being used to stab someone, it is left behind as evidence of a murder. It may no longer fulfill its purpose (to inflict harm), but it still offers evidence as to what did actually occur.

Vestiges offer significant proof of evolution.

b) Atavisms

These are very similar to vestiges. An atavism is a reappearance related to past ancestors, not found in the parents or other close relatives. For example, a whale has been found with an actual leg on its body. This would not be from its parents or other close relatives, but has reappeared from its past ancestors (which were tiger-like animals on land). Carl Wieland, CEO of Answers in Genesis (a creationist think tank) and editor of creation magazine stated the whale with this atavism offers a “serious challenge to … [the] creation model” [4].

Evolution predicts atavisms. We know that whales had terrestrial ancestors based on the phylogenetic tree. This means that there is a possibility that mutant whales will occasionally develop atavisms from these terrestrial ancestors. Most of the legs found on whales were merely a few bones (femurs, tibia, etc.) but a few had entire feet with complete digits. Further evidence comes from humans themselves. Some newborns are born with tails—indicating an ancestor with a tail, which again points to ape-like ancestors. Evidence indicates that humans lost their tales due to decreases in the Wnt-3a gene—a mutation which was put into the homo sapien genome [5]. This offers evidence to the fact is new borns are sometimes born with tails, that this mutation disappears. And the fact that humans—whose recent ancestors do not have tails—are born with tails indicates that we do, in fact, come from an ancestor which had a tale.

c) Fossil record

There is quite a complete record of dinosaur to bird transitional fossils. In fact, this record is so complete that there are no gaps! There are many fossils which indicate a transition, and in fact have prerequisites to feathers on their bodies (in some cases, actual feathers are expected to have existed!) To name some of these fossils, to name a few, “Eoraptor, Herrerasaurus, Ceratosaurus, Allosaurus, Compsognathus, Sinosauropteryx, Protarchaeopteryx, Caudipteryx, Velociraptor, Sinovenator, Beipiaosaurus, Sinornithosaurus, Microraptor, Archaeopteryx, Rahonavis, Confuciusornis, Sinornis, Patagopteryx, Hesperornis, Apsaravis, Ichthyornis, and Columba, among many others” [6].

There is also an extensive fossil record for reptile to mammal transitions. Fossils from the Jurassic indicate a class of mammaliaforms, an extinct group of animals “more closely related to the living mammals than to nonmammaliaform cynodonts” have existed. These fossils show “evolutionary innovations in the ear region, the temporomandibular joint, and the brain vault” [7]. This means that there are significant transitional fossils between reptiles and mammals, indicating some form of evolution occurred from one point to the next.

Although a common ancestor has not been identified, the connection between humans and ape-like creatures is strong and has reached “a consensus” amongst phylogenetic analysis’s [8]. Homo erectus, Cro-Magnon, Homo habilis, etc. all show direct ancestry to one common ancestor (which has yet to be identified). So far, at least 14 transitional ape to human fossils have been identified [9].

Whale evolution is considered the “one of the most compelling examples of macroevolutionary change in vertebrates”. It is also the “best documented examples of macroevolution in mammals” [10]. The evolution of whale heads are well documented.

[10]

As we can see, the nasal positions shifted, orbits changed, etc.

In primitive land mammals, molars have 3 cusps. Two cheek side, one tongue side. Two early whales have similar teeth to that of these primitive land mammals, however as more whales evolved we see a reduction in crests and basins, as shown in the following figure.

[10]

Conclusion:

Overall, the evidence I have presented shows a simple conclusion: the evidence for evolution is overwhelming, and in the words of a leading creationist, the evidence often offers a “serious challenge to … [the] creation model”.

Can we prove that evolution is false without using religion? Certainly we can! Evolution is a scientific theory that stands or falls on the physical evidence. In fact, one can be an atheist, a person who doesn't believe in God, and still not believe in evolution!
Charles Darwin's theory of evolution, as taught at school, is a biological explanation of how creatures have supposedly "evolved" or developed progressively through natural selection and variation (now known as mutation) over eons of time from the tiny cell to the largest creatures on earth today. What is taught in classrooms is not mere micro evolution"small changes within a species"but macro evolution, the change from one type of creature to another quite distinct life form.
What many evolutionists are trying to convince you of is that there is no need for a Creator since, as they say, evolution can substitute as the mechanism for creating and transforming life. They teach that life arose from non-life and evolved from simpler creatures to more complex life forms. In other words, the tiny cell eventually became an amoeba, then a lizard, then a gorilla the us. Well let me take initiative in explaining why we couldve came up with a much better idea than gorillas.

First off- Fossils
We can agree that A fossil is the preserved remains of a living thing. The fossil record around the earth extends an average of one mile deep. Below this level we come up with a blank slate as far as living, complex creatures are concerned.
Lets talk about trilobites for example. No previous ancestors of these arthropods have been found. Similar to some marine "bugs" we see today on the seashore that disappear into the sand when the waves retreat, trilobites had hard shells, all the basic organs, and complex eyes like those of flies, with hundreds of sophisticated lenses connected to the optic nerve going to the brain. Trilobite fossils are found around the earth, and in all cases the level of rock beneath them does not reveal other creatures with similar features. As one source states: "The dominant life form was the now-extinct sea creature known as a trilobite, up to a foot long, with a distinctive head and tail, a body made up of several parts, and a complex respiratory system. But although there are many places on earth where 5,000 feet of sedimentary rock stretch unbroken and uniformly beneath the Cambrian [layer], not a single indisputable multi-celled fossil has been found there. It is 'the enigma of paleontological [fossil studies] enigmas,' according to Stephen Gould. Darwin himself said he could give 'no satisfactory answer' to why no fossils had been discovered. Today's scientists are none the wiser" (Francis Hitching, The Neck of the Giraffe , 1982, pp. 26-27).

Secondly, the ostrich example you gave is irrelevant as that was mere adaptation and was not the subject of out debate. Living things adapt to their enviroments and pass it on in their genes to their following ancestors. I agree with adaptation and believe it is how life became more complex and advanced.

My opponent ignores the evidence I have provided, but offers a counterpoint: The trilobite. This example, however, is based on a book published in the 80s and, therefore, does not include modern science.

The quote claims that complex life began in the Cambrian explosion. This is incorrect. Evolution occurred at an accelerated rate in the Cambrian explosion, but multicellular life did in fact exist in the precambrian. Multicellular life has been identified before the Cambrian in Southern China. Although the authors do say it *could* be nonorganic in origin, the evidence suggests that there were “structures that greatly resemble gastrula stage embryos of modern bilaterian forms” [1]. In other words, the fact that there was multicellular life before the Cambrian explosion offers evidence to the fact that the complex structures created in the Cambrian did have some more primitive ancestors a few million years before the trilobite evolved.

Unlike what my opponent’s source claims, this multicellular life did not spontaneously show up. Simple life in the precambrian evolved into simple multicellular life, and then became complex in the Cambrian explosion. Evidence does NOT show that life appeared, the fossil record shows a slow increase in complexity, and an accelerated rate in evolution in the Cambrian--and the Cambrian does in fact have a lot of transitional fossils. The fact is, the more research is done, the fewer gaps there are. Precambrian life is more complex than previously thought, and therefore provides a stepping stone for the explosion to occur--which included the trilobites. Sponges, corals, jellyfish, anemones all have been found to exist in the precambrian oceans [2]. In fact, research has found the origins of body parts of early fish and insects from these simple precambrian animals [3]. So, overall, the cambrian explosion supports evolutionary theory, it does not disprove it.

Further, to claim that scientists are fully ignorant of a common ancestor does not disprove evolution. Uncertainty does not indicate that evolution is incorrect. And again, the source my opponent is using is severely outdated as there have been amazing progress in the evidence for evolution. Evidence published 14 years after my opponents source was published has found a plethora of evidence regarding the ancestors of the trilobite. Its features do NOT show a trilobite coming from nothing. Not to mention the statement that no fossils have been found is a flat out lie (a quick search in google scholar got me studies from the 70s about precambrian fossils). Regardless, there is evidence that species such as bomakellia kelleri existed before the trilobite. These animals had trilobite shape and other aspects similar to that of a trilobite. It is suggested that these could be an evolutionary predecessor to the trilobite [4].

The fact is, the fossil record overwhelmingly supports evolution. Even though some areas are still under question, that does not disprove evolution. It merely shows the record is incomplete. And this record is completed more every day, and citing a book published in the 1980s does not include the modern science.

b) Ostrich

An leftover adaptation, as I explained, suggests previous macroevolution from a bird with the ability of flight. Therefore, my argument of vestiges and atavisms must be refuted, not waved off as you simply do.

c) Small changes

This always has puzzled me… My opponent and other creationists claim small scale changes occur, but a large one cannot. However, can't multiple small changes lead to a large change? A small change in DNA is extremely significant: as stated, we are only about 1% different genetically to a chimpanzee. Therefore, wouldn’t small changes over time lead to a different specie? Evolution isn’t a 10 year jump from reptile to mammal, but a process of slow change between the species, and the mechanism for this is natural selection. So, if small changes exist, I really don’t see why those small changes wouldn’t lead up to a large change. Acceptance of microevolution essentially concedes that macroevolution could (and has) occured.

Conclusion

My opponent has ignored the majority of what I have said and has responded to a small portion of my argument. And even then, I refute his arguments. Further, he offers no evidence as to why evolution is false! He only responds to what I argue. I will again quote one of the leading creationists as to the evidence of atavisms and vestiges, “[vestiges and atavisms offer a] serious challenge to … [the] creation model”. And my opponent essentially drops those two arguments! At this point, I hope I have enlightened my opponent and other well-meaning creationists who simply are unaware of the modern science. The evidence is overwhelming: Evolution exists.

My opponent happens to have information to prove similarity in animals genes. However that is not sufficient to prove evolution as a theory.

Firstly I would like to address your "humans and chimps have been proven to only have 1% difference" :
As if trying to suggest that those who question human-chimp common ancestry are ignorant, PBS asserts that "a schoolchild can cite the figure perhaps most often called forth in support of [human/chimp common ancestry]--namely, that we share almost 99 percent of our DNA with our closest living relative, the chimpanzee." Such an argument raises two questions:

(1) Is the 99% Human/Chimp DNA-similarity statistic accurate? While recent studies have confirmed that certain stretches of human and chimp DNA are on average about 1.23% different, this is merely an estimate with huge caveats. A recent news article in Science observed that the 1% figure "reflects only base substitutions, not the many stretches of DNA that have been inserted or deleted in the genomes."1 In other words, when the chimp genome has no similar stretch of human DNA, such DNA sequences are ignored by those touting the statistic that humans and chimps are only 1% genetically different. For this reason, the aforementioned Science news article was subtitled "The Myth of 1%," and printed the following language to describe the 1% statistic:

"studies are showing that [humans and chimps] are not as similar as many tend to believe";
the 1% statistic is a "truism [that] should be retired";
the 1% statistic is "more a hindrance for understanding than a help";
"the 1% difference wasn't the whole story";
"Researchers are finding that on top of the 1% distinction, chunks of missing DNA, extra genes, altered connections in gene networks, and the very structure of chromosomes confound any quantification of 'humanness' versus 'chimpness.'"
Indeed, due to the huge caveats in the 1% statistic, some scientists are suggesting that a better method of measuring human/chimp genetic differences might be counting individual gene copies. When this metric is employed, human and chimp DNA is over 5% different. But new findings in genetics show that gene-coding DNA might not even be the right place to seek differences between humans and chimps.
But there is a deeper question: (2) If humans and chimps were truly only 1% different at the genetic level, why should that demonstrate common ancestry? As noted in Slide 9, similarities in key genetic sequences may be explained as a result of functional requirements and common design rather than mere common descent. We might reasonably ask the evolutionist why the 1% difference value is considered powerful evidence for Darwinian evolution, and at what point does the comparison cease to support Darwinian evolution? What about 2% different? 3%? 5%? 10%? Is there an objective metric for falsification here, or is PBS putting forth a fallacious argument for human / chimp common ancestry?

Intelligent design is certainly compatible with human/ape common ancestry, but the truth is that the percent difference says nothing about whether humans and chimps share a common ancestor. The percent genetic similarity between humans and apes does not demonstrate Darwinian evolution, unless one excludes the possibility of intelligent design.

Just as intelligent agents 're-use' functional components that work over and over in different systems (e.g., wheels for cars and wheels for airplanes), genetic similarities between humans and chimps could also be explained as the result of the re-usage of common genetic programs due to functional requirements of the hominid body plan.

Second: The chances Of Evolution Occuring
An occurrence that has more than one chance in 10^50, it has a statistically zero chance of actually occurring. And the chances of its occurence greatly exceed 1 in 10,00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000. (50 zeros)

"Mathematicians agree that any requisite number beyond 10^50 has, statistically, a zero probability of occurrence."
To hear evolutionists tell it, all you need is time. Take a few billion years here to get galaxies up and running, a gross of millennia there to line up those pesky organic chemicals the right way for life, and an epoch or two to morph some ape-like creatures into humans.
Evolution sounds incredibly mysterious that way, dressed up in decades and centuries and eons. But all those years really just obscure the deeper issue.

While evolutionists toss years around like a football, they ignore a fundamental flaw in Darwin"s idea. What"s that? Even trillions of years wouldn't be enough time to produce the simplest cell.

People gamble in hopes to beat the odds and win big. But the slot machine of evolution has no chance to get the jackpot of life arising from non-life.

Not with All the Time in the World
Secular science textbooks make the origin of life sound simple enough. Throw in some chemicals, zap them with electricity, and you've got organic stew. At some point long, long ago, one such chemical concoction hit on the magical formula to succeed. After that, natural selection and genetics took over and marched toward humanity. Given enough time, these books assure us, it was bound to happen.

But that formula for life is like multiplying by zero. No matter how big the other numbers, you"ll still end up with zilch. In other words, throwing in as much time as you like would still get you nowhere. It"s sort of like this:

Darwin"s idea " billions of years " 0 (chance of actually happening) = 0.
When mathematicians crunch the numbers, they come to some pretty staggering conclusions. The chance of evolution actually happening is about as likely as a blindfolded person throwing a pebble into outer space and knocking down a satellite that then crashes onto a target on the back of a truck speeding down the highway. Even with billions of years, that"s not going to happen. (For those of you who like math, you can see some numbers here.)

To be sure, Darwinists have tried to massage those impossible odds to work in their favor, but no amount of number obfuscation can get around the facts. Time is not their friend.

100 Percent Certain
So, if evolution is impossible no matter the eons, what else is there? The answer to that is simple. Based on real observations from scientific studies, we have no reason to believe life started by itself. According to the laws of biology, life always comes from life. Beyond that, information science shows us that information (such as the DNA necessary for life to begin) requires an intelligent source. Finally, without starting from an evolutionary bias, the study of genetics helps us understand that the variety of animal kinds on the earth could never lead back to a single ancestor.

Add all that up and you"re left with an inescapable conclusion: there must be a powerful and super-wise Creator. With such a Creator, you no longer need billions of years. He could create everything in much less time"say . . . six days.

According to the Bible, this Creator"God"did exactly that. He gave us a clear record (the Bible) of how He created the world, how long it took Him, how humans fell into sin, and how God the Son (Jesus) came to earth to save us. And of that you can be 100 percent certain. After all, God doesn"t leave anything to chance"not in a billion years (if there had really been that much time, that is).

And The holy Quran also has this view:

"We have built the heaven with (the power of Our) hands, and We are expanding (it)"

(The Holy Qur"an, Surat Al-Dhariyat, Chapter 51, Verse 47).
In this verse, God Almighty, praise to Him, is telling us that He created heaven and He is expanding it. Modern cosmology discovered this fact of the expanding universe in the twentieth century. The quran has been around for more than 1400 years. while Darwin only 150 years.

My opponent cites John Cohen, who argues in his Science article that humans are less related to chimpanzees than previously thought (about 5%). Cohen, however, argues that chimpanzees and humans genes differ by “only 1.23%”. The larger number he reports (5-6.5%) are all from the non-coding sections of the genome. Further, Cohen didn’t come up with this number himself, but rather cites research using models. This means that the number he cited is not from ‘hard’ evidence. The 1.23%, Cohen argues, is a hard fact as it is based off of observations of the entire Chimpanzee and Human genome. Cohen argues, therefore, our actual genes (which are the coding) are extremely similar, however it is the noncoding regions which differ. In fact, he argues those who cite his work for intelligent design have “garbled” his data, and the work using his article as an argument against evolution is “sloppy, inaccurate, and overtly biased” [1].

In fact, if you read the article, Cohen says this. However, I suspect most creationist thinkers are mainly trying to push an agenda. Cohen, directly from his article (I will provide a direct link), notes that many scientists--which believe in evolution--predicted a number higher than 1% may occur due to “profound differences outside genes” [2].

Again, although Cohen thinks the genes are slightly less related than many (1.23% versus under 1%), he finds that most of the differences are due to differences outside the genome! Therefore, creationists should stop citing this study as ‘proof’ that chimpanzees and humans are not closely related. Cohen himself says that creationists are misrepresenting his work!

According to the Smithsonian, who gives the low estimates (0.1% difference) to higher estimates (1.2 - 6% difference), and argues both still support evolution. As the Smithsonian notes, “humans, chimpanzees, and bonobos are more closely related to one another than either is to gorillas or any other primate”. In other words, either way, we are our closest relatives are, in fact, chumpanzees. The Smithsonian continues, “[w]e share more genes with organisms that are more closely related to us . . . our close biological kinship with other primate species is indicated by DNA evidence . . . DNA also shows that our species and chimpanzees diverged from a common ancestor species that lived between 8 and 6 million years ago. The last common ancestor of monkeys and apes lived about 25 million years ago.” [3].

The fact is, we are closely related to our primate brethren. We have very very similar DNA to, say, our parents. Siblings, grandparents, and cousins. The fact that we differ about 1-6% is very small, and indicates--no matter which number is accepted--that it is likely we are in the same family. Just like how my mother is in the same family as I am. We are related. Which means that, we had a common ancestor (an ape-like creature)--which supports the theory of evolution. Further, I provided fossil evidence for this, as well, which my opponent seems to have ignored.

b) Probability of evolution occurring

My opponent does not provide a source (though a while ago he sent me a link with this calculation). However, the creationist math is… well.. It does not take into account the whole picture.

There is always a fantastically huge number of ways an animal could evolve, however, the organism obviously will only choose one course. In a creationist calculation, they say evolution didn’t happen, because, well… It took that one course. Which, obviously, is an absurd conclusion. So even if we did observe evolution directly (say, my kids were born a different species), I could say “my kids were never born because the probability of that happening is almost zero”... When it did actually happen.

So a creationist probability is based on how many ways things can evolve, and the fact that they choose one out of a million means that evolution is incorrect. However, that is showing that the individual mutation was unlikely, not any type of mutation never happened.

In fact, mathematicians have called this creationist argument “pseudoscientific rhetoric”. There was a report published on this very issue. The author makes an interesting analogy to a snowflake. Using creationist logic, it is impossible for a snowflake to form (the probability is actually lower than the number my opponent uses for evolution). So… Snowflakes don't exist! The reason you get a huge number is because creationist equations assume evolution (or, in this case, snowflakes) are formed at random. Evolution is not random. The author says that, at best, creationist equations are “inconclusive” [4]. This means the low probability estimates my opponent cites is because they misunderstand evolution. It is not random, it occurs due to changes from the environment.

To put a few basic reasons why this argument does not hold up [5]:

“They presume that the biomolecular structure came into existence through a single chance assemblage of atoms (the creationist theory), rather than as the result of an eons-long series of intermediate steps, each useful in a previous biological context (the scientific theory).

They ignore numerous well-known physical laws and processes at the atomic level, by which remarkably rich structures can form naturally, not by chance.

They apply faulty mathematical reasoning, such as by ignoring the fact that a very wide range of similar molecular structures could perform the specified function.

They ignore the fact that biological evolution is not a "random" process -- mutations may be random, but natural selection is far from random.

They attempt to invoke advanced mathematical concepts (e.g., information theory), but derive highly questionable results and misapply these results in ways that render the conclusions invalid in an evolutionary biology context.”

c) Laws of Biology

“Life comes from life” is an argument against abiogenesis, not evolution. For all I know, God places a single cell organism and guided its evolution. That is besides the point. The fact is, evolution is real and I have demonstrated that through science. Also, that is not a law of biology at all. In fact, according to Nature, “evolution (or perhaps ecology) are the most likely fields to furnish biological laws” [6]. So, if anything, evolution is a ‘law’ of biology.

d) Koran

Irrelevant. The Koran is not a scientific source. Due to the fact it pertains to explain the supernatural, it cannot be proven or disproven. Therefore, it has no bearing on this debate. However, most muslim scholars have argued that “there is no contradiction between the scientific theory of evolution and Quran's numerous references to the emergence of life in the universe,” and also that “god-directed “evolution” [7]. Therefore, hopefully my opponent is willing to change his views and recognize that his religion does not contradict modern science.

lol, things people do outside of a debate =/= bad conduct in a debate (you can only vote on things in a debate). And you are giving this person, who drops all of my arguments, a win. This website is do dumb sometimes :P

It might be forgivable to only pick out to things to give a rebuttal on, had con gotten really close to the limit on each round. I admit I have had to do it because the rebuttal on the ones I picked took so much, one I am in now I only have 500 characters that not a lot of space. When you have a 72 hour turn around and a huge space to write and then don't use it up your not doing your argument justice. There a many debates on here that what made the argument weak was that they rushed it. Sucks when you are forced to vote against a side you know is right due to how rushed they made there argument.

Con I might disagree with you but if you make your argument better you could get my vote. Take your time and do it well. :)

I have no response to the majority of what you are saying, so I will pick two things you said and contend those alone. Hopefully everyone reading this will just forget that Pro made all of those other points that I have nothing to say to.

Reasons for voting decision: It was a slaughter, Con failed to give adequate sources and his argument was lacking. Failing to provide counter arguments or for that matter lack of hurt his argument against evolution. Pro not only provided a well written argument, but also a abundance of sources and had better conduct. I would love to have seen a more compelling debate but con's use of religious text which cant reliably be used in a debate which requires evidence. Cons argument was more focused on how evolution is a "theory" yet fails to acknowledge the rational evidences that leans to evolution, but continues to voice an irrational argument without providing supporting evidence.

Reasons for voting decision: Pro had better sources, more solidified points, and was able to build a strong case for the fossil record. Every object con had to pros contentions was shot down, and pro was able to maintain almost every single one. This was a pretty clear and concise win for pro

Reasons for voting decision: Pro posted this debate in the "post unvoted debates here" forum thread, asking for a "counter vote bomb" despite the fact it is against the rules of that thread. This results in a lost point for conduct.

Reasons for voting decision: Pro saturated his arguments with dozens of citations whereas con used very few that also could not readily be examined or investigated, so source points goes to the pro. Con gave very shaky counter-arguments to pro's claims, but he ended up shooting himself in the feet at the very end when he attributed the origins of life to God simply because 'it says so' in religious scriptures, which aren't valid sources of evidence when it comes to science. Therefore, argument points to the pro as well.

You are not eligible to vote on this debate

This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.